Ted Cruz Introduces Anti-Gay Marriage Bill

[Fern]

The problem with federal govt rights is best exemplified with these proposed bills: Obamacare

(Opps, that one passed)

FTFY

Fern

 

[Incorruptible]

The problem with States Rights is best exemplified with these proposed Bills.

So you don't want to obey the Constitution, Typical leftist.

 

[thraashman]

Fail. You don't have to introduce a law to be a bigot.

Many people hold bigoted views of different levels. Without thinking of it we might assume a group of black people are more likely to be dangerous of we're white. Or we might believe a person of hispanic origin is illegal. Or we may hold religious views that have us considering certain groups to be deserving of less. As many in here are fond of pointing out, black people themselves are often prejudiced against white people. There's a lot of things that get ingrained in us as we're growing up that force us to hold prejudice. The sign of a good person is one who can recognize that prejudice and evolve their views. Our current President was able to do that so I applaud him.

I never called Ted Cruz a bigot. I do however think he's an asshole, but that has almost nothing to do with the issue of this thread.

 

[thraashman]

Ted Cruz represents the entire Tea Party movement? Love the hypocrisy of liberals when they get outraged someone calls out radical Islam but they do this.

So you don't want to obey the Constitution, Typical leftist.

Ok, I'm sorry. Then we'll just call Ted Cruz a "typical Tea Partyist". Now we're more in line with your way of thinking.

 

[Moonbeam]

Many people hold bigoted views of different levels. Without thinking of it we might assume a group of black people are more likely to be dangerous of we're white. Or we might believe a person of hispanic origin is illegal. Or we may hold religious views that have us considering certain groups to be deserving of less. As many in here are fond of pointing out, black people themselves are often prejudiced against white people. There's a lot of things that get ingrained in us as we're growing up that force us to hold prejudice. The sign of a good person is one who can recognize that prejudice and evolve their views. Our current President was able to do that so I applaud him.

I never called Ted Cruz a bigot. I do however think he's an asshole, but that has almost nothing to do with the issue of this thread.

How do you know that many people hold bigoted views? Bigots will tell you that you are the one in error. Furthermore, they get very angry when you tell them what they are. Their capacity to deflect the truth is epic in proportions.

I believe they were shamed into being bigots and now try to shame anybody who isn't one now, Stockholm syndrome as it were.

Sadly they are dangerous to a society and when they mass up as a party like the Tea Party bigots, they cause damage to society. We are suffering a deadly infection and they don't like it if you're not nice to them. What to do with this horrible disease is a fascinating question, I think.

 

[Incorruptible]

Ok, I'm sorry. Then we'll just call Ted Cruz a "typical Tea Partyist". Now we're more in line with your way of thinking.

No, The Tea Party is about limited Constitutional government and not social conservatism.

 

[BUnit1701]

hahahahaaaaaa
The republicans are their own worse enemas......
Until they figure out what is important there will never be a Republican POTUS!!

LMAO, yes, gays not being able to get married is by far the greatest issue facing this nation.

 

[Fern]

Ok, I'm sorry. Then we'll just call Ted Cruz a "typical Tea Partyist". Now we're more in line with your way of thinking.

TEA Party isn't about social issues, even though it seems libs would like
it to be.

I've looked and can't find much, if anything, on social issues (unless it's a lib site denouncing them).

This seems to be their (official?) platform: http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

Nothing in their list of ten of "goals" has anything to do with social issues.

Another site, and I don't know if they're partisan or not, lists issues etc for the various parties including the TEA Party and they have nothing about gay marriage: http://www.ontheissues.org/Tea_Party.htm

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

TEA Party isn't about social issues, even though it seems libs would like
it to be.

I've looked and can't find much, if anything, on social issues (unless it's a lib site denouncing them).

This seems to be their (official?) platform: http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

Nothing in their list of ten of "goals" has anything to do with social issues.

Another site, and I don't know if they're partisan or not, lists issues etc for the various parties including the TEA Party and they have nothing about gay marriage: http://www.ontheissues.org/Tea_Party.htm

Fern

By their fruits you will know them. Go look at what they actually do when they get into office.

 

[Moonbeam]

LMAO, yes, gays not being able to get married is by far the greatest issue facing this nation.

Oh, yes it certainly is when it's time to herd the fuctard vote to the polls. You have to keep them in a state of psychotic rage so they will vote their issue bigotry. Who the fuck do you think you are kidding....

 

[BUnit1701]

The problem with States Rights is best exemplified with these proposed Bills.

The problem with liberals is exemplified with this post. If you dont like that states decision, guess what? There are 49 others to choose from. THAT is how our country is suppose to work, not be some uniform featureless blob feeding and worshiping D.C.

 

[soulcougher73]

Was Obama "extreme socially far right wing " when he was against gay marriage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpXjtzOVZnU

On that issue yes he was.

 

[fskimospy]

The problem with liberals is exemplified with this post. If you dont like that states decision, guess what? There are 49 others to choose from. THAT is how our country is suppose to work, not be some uniform featureless blob feeding and worshiping D.C.

Sorry, human rights are universal.

 

[Moonbeam]

The problem with liberals is exemplified with this post. If you dont like that states decision, guess what? There are 49 others to choose from. THAT is how our country is suppose to work, not be some uniform featureless blob feeding and worshiping D.C.

Yup, we should have slavery is some and the Christianity as a state religion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sorry, human rights are universal.

Where do these idiots come from?

 

[Fern]

Sorry, human rights are universal.

Yes, as long as I get to define them.











(Isn't that your position?)

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, as long as I get to define them.

(Isn't that your position?)

Fern

Since human rights are subject to the definition we give them that's everyone's position.

States that attempt to oppress certain classes of citizens based on irrational bigotry can and should be stopped by the feds. That's one of the primary purposes of the federal government, to keep wayward states in line. That's why we have a supremacy clause, etc.

 

[werepossum]

The thread title bugs me on several levels (yes, I acknowledge it's the title of the article):

1. Sounds like the bill is to allow anti-gay supporters the right to marriage.

2. The bill looks to me to be about states' rights. I saw nothing in the article to suggest it was about outlawing gay marriage:

Similar recognition to states' marriage laws is all I see here.

It would be nice if the article explained at least somewhat what the damn point is. As far as I know the federal govt is already recognizing various states' marriage laws. So, what's the point here? Ted? Anybody? I suppose I must ask because this is another vapid P&N thread without a real point and just here to mindlessly bash the other political side.

Fern

How is that workable though? Right now if a gay couple lives in Tennessee they can get married in California (or wherever it's legal) and have that marriage recognized by the federal government. Would this bill change that? If so, why, considering that this does not materially affect the States either way? Is this like young males insisting on attacking people who disrespect them, with the States being insulted that their decision isn't binding on the federal government?

Shouldn't we all have the same basic human rights in every state anyway? We're a Union of States, not a Confederacy of States.

Just goes to show that it isn't only the Party of Big Government who is in love with using the armed might of the federal government to infringe our freedom while enforcing their preferred reality. The Party of Limited Government is just as enamored of raw power, just in different ways against different people toward different ends.

 

[Fern]

How is that workable though? Right now if a gay couple lives in Tennessee they can get married in California (or wherever it's legal) and have that marriage recognized by the federal government. Would this bill change that?

I can't see how it would. But I'm the wrong guy to ask since I can't make any sense out of the bill.

If so, why, considering that this does not materially affect the States either way? Is this like young males insisting on attacking people who disrespect them, with the States being insulted that their decision isn't binding on the federal government?

Shouldn't we all have the same basic human rights in every state anyway? We're a Union of States, not a Confederacy of States.

Just goes to show that it isn't only the Party of Big Government who is in love with using the armed might of the federal government to infringe our freedom while enforcing their preferred reality. The Party of Limited Government is just as enamored of raw power, just in different ways against different people toward different ends.

I don't see how it shows anything. I can only think Ted Cruz's office didn't adequately explain the bills purpose, because at this point I see none whatsoever. All I get is some vague, unnecessary, reaffirmation of states' rights regarding the fed govt respect of hetero marriage.

Mostly Washington DC angers me, this time I have to admit they've only managed to baffle me.

Fern

 

[LunarRay]

Keep spouting your BS.

I'd ask you why... But, a why question only results in a termination statement like, "Shut up and go to bed".

So.... How is it that you can't find wisdom in the truth? Is it the truth that you don't accept or its wisdom? What possible motive does Cruz, et. al. have to prosecute a continued and rather absurd legislative agenda?

 

[LunarRay]

Yes, as long as I get to define them.











(Isn't that your position?)

Fern

My position is that Human Rights are self evident. With a clear mind one can easily understand that all Rights are held by the individual.... IF one individual has the Right to marry... all individuals do... It is that simple.

 

[Moonbeam]

My position is that Human Rights are self evident. With a clear mind one can easily understand that all Rights are held by the individual.... IF one individual has the Right to marry... all individuals do... It is that simple.

It's simple if you are not a bigot.

 

[Fern]

My position is that Human Rights are self evident. With a clear mind one can easily understand that all Rights are held by the individual.... IF one individual has the Right to marry... all individuals do... It is that simple.

"Self evident" is one of those mythical concepts like 'common sense' and 'unicorns'.

Is the right not to respect something (e.g., gay marriage) also a "self evident" human right?

Fern

 

[LunarRay]

"Self evident" is one of those mythical concepts like 'common sense' and 'unicorns'.

Is the right not to respect something (e.g., gay marriage) also a "self evident" human right?

Fern

Think of Rights as that which enables one to do or not do something. The rub comes when there is a conflict between the Rights of one and the Rights of another.

You have the Right to respect what you wish and to propound that Right from the mountain top to all who may hear it. But, that 'respect' does not block or alter the Rights of anyone else.... So, it seems fine to exercise that Right.
Our society here in the USA was founded and amended and will be further amended to reflect society at each time interval. I suspect that if everyone in the USA was Muslim we'd probably adhere to that 'rule' and if we were all left handed, long haired, hippy communal dwellers we'd live like Moonbeam would opt for.... It all depends, don't it?
It is why I'm not all that condemning of the Christian attempts to alter our society to that 'rule'.... It is natural and unalterable. But, as of today, we are neither all Muslim nor Christian... In essence, we are free.

 

[SlickSnake]

There's always another election coming up soon. So it's time once again to gain an unscrupulous political advantage for the Repulikrauts and media bash a few more downtrodden gays for wanting pesky civil rights and stuff, and get all the brain addled religious fundies in their wheel chairs out of their retirement homes and on the short bus to go vote for the middle class American dream and stuff. And it really is a dream too, or more like a middle class nightmare at this point. And the gays have absolutely nothing to do about it.